1 Timothy 2:8–15

Original Meaning

Attitude and Behavior of Men in the Christian Church (2:8)

THE USE OF oun (“therefore”) in this verse, while it may be simply an idiomatic nonessential indication of transition (omitted by NIV), does suggest that content affects attitude. Those who have been instructed to pray for people in authority for the sake of peaceful and quiet lives should themselves pray without argumentation. “I want” can indicate a strong preference, though not as strong as “I urge” (2:1) or “I do not permit” (v. 12) and certainly not equal to “[God] wants” (v. 4). Although it is not a command, the word used here (boulomai) can express what the individual strongly wants, expects, or even intends to happen.

The word translated “men” (pl. of aner) usually means males, though there are examples in classical Greek rhetoric of its use to include women. Here, however, it clearly stands in contrast with “women” in verse 9. This policy is in accordance with public prayer in the Jewish synagogue, though women did pray in gatherings of Christians (1 Cor. 11:5).1 “Everywhere” is reminiscent of “as in all the congregations of the saints” in 1 Corinthians 14:33, where the subject is the role of women in public meetings. This fact should caution us against any assumption that Paul’s instructions in our passage apply only to the church at Ephesus.2 To lift up “holy hands” does not put emphasis on the hands themselves (as washed and ritually pure). Such would go against Jesus’ teachings (Matt. 15:1–2, 10–11). Rather, it is assumed that men will pray in the customary Jewish manner, with hands uplifted; thus, these hands should belong to men whose lives are consistent with God’s holiness.

The Bible teaches that there are controllable factors affecting the efficacy of our prayer. These are mainly relational—both our relationship with God (hidden sin, “planned” sin, lack of trust) and our relationship with other people (“forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” a condition that Jesus singles out for further comment after the Lord’s Prayer in Matt. 6:12, 14–15).3 In 1 Timothy 2:8 “anger” and “disputing” are inconsistent with the life of holiness that God requires of those who pray publicly, but they are also counter to effective praying.

Bridging Contexts

THE NEED FOR careful interpretation. This section, especially verses 12–15, has probably received more attention in recent years than any other passage of similar length. It has been explored and perhaps exploited by those concerned with gender roles in the church. The approaches have been as varied as the concerns. Before venturing specific suggestions for application (see Contemporary Significance) one should consider the problems involved in moving from the text in its ecclesiastical, historical, and social background to its meaning beyond those immediate circumstances.

Although one must avoid generalizations and be aware of modifications and nuances in exegetical and hermeneutical findings, two major approaches can be identified. One approach views the text as a major piece in a continuum of biblical teaching that women, while equal to men in worth, are intended from the beginning to be subordinate to them. The other is that any subordination of women is contrary to God’s ideal, was caused by the fall of Adam and Eve, was reversed in the church through the sacrifice of Christ, but has been perpetuated by erroneous interpretations of Scripture.

Modifications of these positions include various views on the relationship of Adam and Eve prior to the Fall, the possible reasons for the all-male priesthood and Jesus’ all male apostolate, examples of ministering women in Old and New Testaments, the positive view Jesus had of women, the nature of the husband-wife relationship described in Ephesians 5:22–33, the positive attitudes Paul had to his women associates, the significance of Acts 18:24–26; Romans 16:1–15; 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 14:33–35; Galatians 3:28, and the possible role of cultural factors.

However relevant those biblical passages and cultural factors may be and whatever the position and image of women in Ephesus may have been in the first century, we need look no further than the Pastorals themselves for circumstances that are important in bridging contexts. Second Timothy 3:6–7 informs us about vulnerable women who were being victimized—women “always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” Without need for elaborate theories, this circumstance should alert us to problems that deeply affected at least some women in the Ephesian church and their fitness to learn, let alone teach. The interpreter should exercise care in the application of 1 Timothy 2:12 in churches that do not have problems of such severity. It is important to ask whether the low level of women’s education, and especially of religious education, is relevant not only to the command for them to learn but also to the restriction on their ministry.19

To restate matters from another perspective and in the form of a question: Does the New Testament see women as gifted by God, enabled by the Spirit, and called to minister without limitations because of their gender, unless there are specific, circumstantial contraindications; or does it see women as being limited from engaging in certain ministries that are reserved for men?

The matter has been clouded by the adoption of inadequate and perhaps misleading nomenclature. “Egalitarian” is adopted by some, but opponents claim that they also hold to equality—although, it must be observed, many women feel that they are not considered equal as long as they are restricted from particular ministries. “Complementarian” has been adopted by others, but it can be argued that in the church and increasingly in society it is widely recognized that men and women do complement each other. Neither term is adequate or accurate; neither belongs exclusively to the people who use it.

As regards positions concerning the passage in view, it is perhaps best to be strictly objective and say that (1) some hold a “restrictive” position, believing that Paul restricts women in all circumstances and cultures from teaching men or having authority over them, while (2) others are “nonrestrictive,” in the sense they hold that for one reason or another what Paul says he does not permit (and even the meaning of the practices not permitted is disputed) should not be considered restrictive at all times and in all places. It would be unfortunate if the debate prevents us from seeing the broad teachings of the passage about prayer, modesty, good deeds, the command for women to learn, and the moral qualities described in verse 15.

The importance of context. The topics in 1 Timothy 2:8–15—men lifting up holy hands in prayer, women worshiping in modest clothing without expensive jewelry and modish hairstyles, and women not teaching or assuming authority over a man—may seem unconnected. Further, some issues (e.g., jewelry) may seem of no spiritual consequence in many quarters today. Yet others may seem of immense ecclesiastical importance (e.g., women’s ministry). It would be inadvisable to attempt the process of application without first understanding the relationship of these topics to each other.

The common thread to all these areas is that they are related to public behavior and that this behavior is linked with living “peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (v. 2), which, in turn, relates to the church’s outreach to the non-Christian world (vv. 3–7). If this commentary is correct in seeing the interrelationship of belief and behavior as a major distinctive of the Pastoral Letters, the present passage is an important example of that. We saw in chapter 1 the need not only for faith but also for a good conscience on the part of a Christian leader, and we will note in chapter 3 the importance of public reputation on the part of elders. Here in chapter 2, while there is a private side to worship, it is the open side of the church at worship that is under consideration. Paul is far more concerned about church behavior than he is about church order. That concern ultimately has to do with missionary strategy.

Christians today tend to look back, with some justification, at pagans in the Greco-Roman world as godless and immoral. Both Jewish and Christian writers of the Hellenistic period wrote of the deficiencies of paganism, and many of us see that world only through their eyes. It is true that many of their practices were morally reprehensible. But there were also some aspects of ancient personal and public life that came under the enlightened scrutiny of pagan moral philosophers. To some degree these aspects were important more as a means of keeping order than of personal piety. Nevertheless, there were standards that Christians were not to appear to fall below in their own lives and in their public behavior lest God’s reputation be sullied. This is a major consideration in the Pastoral Letters.

One well-known example of ancient standards was the assortment of “household codes,” that is, lists of duties and relationships that were traditionally observed within families and in external society in ancient Greece (see Introduction). While it is not held here that these existed in well-defined forms in the New Testament period or that they were a significant formative factor in the teachings of the Pastoral Letters, we must not ignore the fact that deviation from reasonable norms of interpersonal behavior would have been noted against the Christians.

This reality is made clear especially in Titus 2 (italics added below):

verses 4–5: “Then they [older women] can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”
verses 6–8: “Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.”
verses 9–10: “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”

We must be sure that our appropriation of biblical ethical teachings accords with their original purposes in the biblical contexts. The principles here are confirmed in 1 Peter 2:11–12 (note the sequence of thought in 2:13–3:7). With Christ as our example we are all to have appropriate submission and respect (including the respect of husbands for wives in 3:7).

Understanding ethical principles. It is important to realize two complementary facts. (1) Ethical practices and commands taught in Scripture are theologically grounded, even though they may apply to passing circumstances. Some examples are instructions regarding the tabernacle in the desert after the Exodus (based on the holiness of God), the rejection of endless repetition of verbiage in pagan prayers to which Jesus referred (based on God’s Fatherhood), and decisions concerning the eating of meat offered to idols (based on the nonexistence of other gods).

(2) Nevertheless, the same theological truths that call for a particular response or set of practices in one circumstance may call for different responses and practices in other circumstances in order to be meaningful. One Old Testament example of this is the series of commands in Leviticus 19 that are based on the holiness of God. These include not only commands against such sins as stealing and lying, but also the decree not to wear “clothing woven of two kinds of material” (v. 19). These instructions may belong to the law of Moses that is no longer binding, but God is still holy, and we need to find substitute ways of proclaiming this same truth in our lives. New Testament examples include women’s wearing of head-coverings (1 Cor. 11) and foot-washing (John 13). The theological ground for head-coverings is considerable (among them the headship of Christ and the order of creation), as is that for foot-washing (Jesus is Lord and Teacher). The fact that Christians have disagreed about how these practices are to be reproduced in contemporary culture shows that some thought needs to be given to such matters. There are various ways to express biblical gender relationships and the Lordship of Christ.

It is sometimes difficult for readers of Scripture today to perceive the reasons for certain practices, especially those that are not usually followed in one’s own culture. Even detailed exegetical scholarship may miss nuances. The larger context, both of the text and of the society addressed, is important. Sometimes biblical practices are meaningful in one situation and not in another. In fact, they may seem strange and even turn people away if they are repeated in another situation than their original context. Clearly the necessary procedure is to determine the theological basis, the reason for any accompanying biblical text, the purpose of the practice, and the changing circumstances that may require a substitute practice to accomplish the same purpose and express the same theological truths.

This is not a matter of interpreting Scripture by culture, which can relativize God’s Word. Rather, Scripture stands over and often against its contemporary culture. Obviously we will be better able to apply Scripture in our situation if we understand how it was intended to be applied to its own. Culture, then, is not a control, but a target. Discernment of what biblical practices should be transferred unchanged and repeated in an identical manner in our very different culture is sharpened by an accurate understanding of the original cultural target, if (that word is important here) it can be determined. This may help us also determine the functional reasons why certain commands and practices were put in Scripture, where they dealt with real life situations.

The difficulty in assessing background data. In making these observations it must be acknowledged that it is perhaps more difficult to bridge contexts with regard to this passage than for any other passage in the Pastoral Letters. Some have observed that hermeneutically it is especially difficult here to incorporate the two horizons—the horizon of the reader in its original setting (the context of the passage in its cultural background as well as its textual setting) and the horizon of the modern reader.

Several scholars have recently addressed the background issues.20 S. M. Baugh’s article is the most detailed and latest word on the background in Ephesus. Whether it is also the last word remains to be seen. The influence of the Artemis cult may indeed have had some effect on the women in the Ephesian church. There is disagreement as to whether the Ephesian Artemis was a stronger sexual figure than other similar female deities in the Roman empire, but there is no question that throughout the empire converts to Christianity had acquaintance with such figures. The hermeneutical question is whether this should be a major factor in the interpretation of the text before us. For those who think the text restricts women in all places at all times it means little. For those who think Paul was addressing a serious circumstance in the Ephesian church of women being unduly influenced by false teachers with their myths and distorted doctrines it is significant.

The question of contemporary influences on interpretation. The horizon of the modern reader is different, of course, but the question here is whether proponents of one side or another have shaded their hermeneutics to adapt to their own culture. It is common for some today to charge those holding a nonrestrictive position with yielding to feminist trends and influence.21 Unfortunately the larger picture of women in the early church, the varying fortunes of women in ministry throughout the ages of church history, and the facts that women’s ministry is not new, that family breakdown is not exclusively the responsibility of women’s freedom, and that Christians have often championed such causes as women’s right to vote, to attend college, and to have equal pay for equal work—much of this has tended to be forgotten 22 So has the negative influence of views about male leadership on generations of sermons and commentaries. We all need to beware of unbiblical influence.

Specific issues. Also overlooked in much of the discussion is the fact that verse 12 contains no command. There is no imperative addressed to Timothy, to the women, or to the churches about women teaching or having authority (see the Original Meaning section). Nevertheless, such practices had significance. Just as the church avoided shame in husband-wife relationships in Paul’s day by having women wear head-coverings, a common practice then (see 1 Cor. 11:2–16), so women expressed quietness and submission in the church by refraining from teaching and exercising authority over men.

Paul does, however, use the imperative in verse 11: “A woman should learn (manthaneto) in quietness and full submission.” (Note: To translate this “Let…learn” [NRSV, NASB, KJV] can lead the English reader to think it is permissive rather than imperative.) The verb is in the third person singular since Paul is giving the command for women indirectly through Timothy. The modifying words are important, “in quietness and full submission.” It is unfortunate that in the present-day discussions far more attention is given to the limits Paul sets than to the imperative for women to learn.

The relevance of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. One of the strongest arguments offered for maintaining Paul’s restrictions permanently and universally is his allusion to the Genesis record. It is important to compare this with the way Paul uses biblical and theological facts in 1 Corinthians. It is clear that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is concerned about honor and shame in public worship (such words as dishonor, disgrace, and glory are significant there). It was important that women express a proper attitude to their husbands by keeping their heads appropriately covered, possibly done by wearing one’s hair modestly bound up. Paul employs a barrage of biblical allusions to support his instruction about women’s heads: (1) The head of every man is Christ; (2) man is the head of woman; (3) the head of Christ is God; (4) man is the image and glory of God; (5) woman is the glory of man; (6) man did not come from woman but woman from man; (7) man was not created for woman but woman for man; and (8) the angels are to be considered.

We see that there is a much greater biblical and theological support offered in 1 Corinthians for a practice about women’s head-coverings that is largely discarded in today’s churches than is offered in 1 Timothy regarding women’s teaching and authority; yet women are widely restricted today on the basis of this latter passage. If it is reasonably argued that there are other ways women today should observe the eight truths in 1 Corinthians 11 than by wearing head-coverings, it is certainly also reasonable for women to observe the two truths in 1 Timothy by other means than refraining from teaching and exercising authority. The application section will address this.

We should also note that following Paul’s strong argumentation pertaining to the relationship between man and woman in 1 Corinthians 11:3–10, he writes: “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (vv. 11–12). That is, having explained why the demeanor of a woman when speaking publicly in the assembly was important by referring to the Old Testament, he then shows that spiritually, “in the Lord,” things are different. He affirms the mutual interdependence of men and women and states that although man came first in the creation, woman comes first (giving birth to males) in succeeding generations. And God is the ultimate source of life, so chronological order is less important.

Since the bearing of the Old Testament on male-female relationships in the Lord is modified somewhat in 1 Corinthians, there is a legitimate question as to whether the reference in 1 Timothy to Eve’s deception, at a time when there was almost universal condemnation of Eve (especially by many rabbis) and when women’s ability to teach was therefore widely discounted, is as relevant to women’s ministry in other circumstances as might be thought.

Contemporary Significance

the spiritual benefits of proper attitudes. The church today can realize significant spiritual benefit from the appropriation of this passage. The chapter began with a call to prayer, with the ultimate purpose of fulfilling God’s desire for all people “to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2:4). We may assume not only that this purpose is valid for today, but also that the rest of the chapter is consistent with it. It is possible to concentrate so narrowly on what men and women may or may not do that we lose the significance of the passage as a whole. Since the call to prayer includes the way Christians should pray and is followed by further instructions to both men and women on how to live and learn, we should confidently pursue attitudes and practices that honor God and draw others to him.

There are so many incidents today of people with allegedly moral agendas expressing unwarranted anger and committing other offenses (one thinks immediately of bombing of abortion clinics and demonstrations of white supremacy) that being able to raise holy hands (v. 8) is immensely important. And while Christian women today make use of cosmetics and stylish attire without cause for criticism, there is still something to be said for the limitation of expenditures on clothing and for the consideration of modesty as well. This also relates to our testimony in the world. If verses 11–15 are applied only to church order within the four walls of a building, something of the purpose of this chapter is lost.

It is, of course, difficult to prescribe the application of verses 11–15 because of the vast difference in interpretation. But the modest attitude promoted in these verses can forward the witness of the church outside of those walls. This can stand in contrast to the harshness that still characterizes some male-female relationships as well as to some of the strident calls one used to hear, especially in the mid-twentieth century, from so-called radical feminists. This passage need not be construed as consigning all women to household chores and child-bearing in order to find in it a modern call to faith, love, holiness, and modesty.23

Theology, morality, and custom. We must also observe the specific restriction that Paul placed on women in its context. This chapter is a unit, and such seemingly different matters as cosmetics and teaching are related to each other. What we might consider today to be matters of little consequence, such as cosmetics and jewelry, apparently had great moral importance in the ancient world. What we might consider a theological matter today, such as whether a woman teaches a man, may have had more significance then as a custom that communicated a moral message. But this custom has little moral significance today. Note that even after all the biblical and theological truths that Paul refers to in connection with women’s hair in 1 Corinthians 11:2— 16, at the end of the passage he calls what he advocates a “custom” (synetheia, NIV “practice”). We should seek ways in which women can communicate the kind of relationship to their husbands described in Ephesians 5 and the kind of honorable public attitude displayed in 1 Corinthians 11 through means that are meaningful and do not alienate the very people we seek to reach.

The importance of consistency. In doing this it is crucial that we avoid inconsistencies. I know of a missionary who concluded her talk to the women (in the basement of a church that forbade women to preach or teach men), only to find that the men had been listening in the adjoining kitchen. Another church interviewed a missionary rather than let her speak on her own, then played a tape of a well-known woman speaker at a missionary conference. In another instance, some mission executives who would not allow a woman to speak in their church went to hear her in another church. A congregation that showed a film of a woman who founded and led a church in a foreign country would nevertheless not allow women even to read Scripture publicly. A teenager once asked why it was all right for her to lead in prayer at the young people’s meeting downstairs but not in a church service upstairs.

In addition to avoiding inconsistencies it is wise to avoid legalism and dogmatism. (In modern terms we might add “micro-managing.”) One hears discussions over the age at which a boy must stop learning the Bible from a woman teacher. One has also seen an extensive, detailed list of what ministries a woman may or may not do. Such attempts to establish precise rules can tend either to trivialize the issues or to be rigidly legalistic.

Paul’s restriction on women’s teaching made good sense in a world that refused to give women teachers a hearing. In his day the New Testament had not yet been completed and circulated, so people were dependent on the authoritative spoken word. Today when anyone teaches the Bible to a church class of men and women, that person is not a lone authority, but may at any time be challenged or corrected by anyone with an open Bible. In the pulpit neither male nor female preachers have authority in themselves; the authority is in the Word of God they proclaim and under which they stand.

In the first century Paul was willing to become all things to all people in order to save some (1 Cor. 9:22). Would not the apostle think it inappropriate for us to forbid a female college president from teaching a Bible class composed of university students—men and women—when such restriction could “stumble” people and cause them to turn from the gospel? A different kind of question often being asked today is whether it is right for a church to be deprived of the spiritual gift of leadership God may have given a woman when she is limited to using that gift in the women’s group.

These are real situations that raise legitimate questions. If, on the one hand, Paul’s restrictions were intended to keep women from doing missionary teaching of men today, from leading a mixed Bible study, or from serving among a group of elders, those restrictions must not be ignored. If, on the other hand, Paul would have valued missionary principles such as not hindering people from the gospel as primary, and if he considered secondary such practices as head-coverings and restricting the teaching of a mixed group to males, we need to be consistent in that regard. No doubt thoughtful readers will see strong points on each side.

Asking the right questions. To test whether this passage requires that women must be restricted from any teaching of men or from any participation in church leadership, we may ask the following questions:

Does the use of the verb authenteo in this context restrict women from authority of any sort, or is a stronger meaning of controlling, dominating, or assuming authority on one’s own in view here, narrowing the scope of restriction?
If a woman teaches a mixed group today, does that imply the same authority that the teaching of the early apostolic traditions about Christ had in the first century?
Would a woman’s teaching men or being part of a leadership team to which men are accountable violate moral standards of decency today as it would have in Paul’s day?
Was Paul’s description of his apostolic practice (“I do not permit”) a command for all time and circumstances, even though it was not expressed as an imperative?
As we address our biblically illiterate society, is it meaningful to reflect Adam’s chronological priority and Eve’s deception by forbidding women from teaching men and from participating in leadership?
If we require women to refrain from teaching or participating in leadership, should we, for the sake of hermeneutical consistency with Paul’s instructions about head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (given the eight biblical and theological reasons for that practice), also require that practice today?

Applying the answers. If our answer to any of these questions is uncertain or raises a legitimate doubt about restricting women, we may well hesitate to prevent them from the full exercise of their Spirit-given gifts in the church. The very fact that it is difficult to assign a specific contemporary significance to this passage, especially verse 12, makes it necessary to face the hard issues just outlined and not continue any practice that we may have wrongly assumed is biblical. These questions are listed to encourage us to work diligently on the answers and to respect those who decide matters differently.

We have seen that there are two opposing sides on these matters. At the risk of over-simplification, it may be useful to summarize these two viewpoints. (1) There is no legitimate way to avoid concluding from verses 11–15 that Paul did not allow women either to teach men or to have any kind of authority over them. Further, this prohibition was not confined to the socio-religious conditions at Ephesus. Thus, any attempts to adjust it for Western or other contemporary cultures are futile and wrong. (2) Paul’s statement was directed to specific circumstances at Ephesus and in the Ephesian church, such as the prominence of women in pagan religion and the victimization of women in the church. It is wrong to apply it without adjustment to other circumstances.

The strength of (1) is its focus on the words and grammar of the text. Its weakness is its failure to pay sufficient attention to the larger context or take fully into account the problems of application. The strength of (2) is its awareness that the letter was written to address specific circumstances that are different from our own. Its weakness is in overemphasizing the background, perhaps to the point of distortion, and (in the arguments of some) straining the text.

(3) There is, however, a possible third approach. The vocabulary, grammar, and structure of this section and its context in chapter 2 are seen as one unit. It deals with the importance of leading “peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (v. 2), not only as a blessing for Christians but in reaching non-Christians (vv. 3–7). This accords with the tone and the goals of the whole Pastoral corpus. Paul intends for Timothy to follow his practice of restricting women, while carefully avoiding putting it into a command for all times and places. The instructions are not limited to the conditions at Ephesus but apply to the whole ancient culture, Jewish and pagan, that regarded it as immoral for women to transcend certain public restrictions. Paul had a missionary purpose, as in 1 Corinthians 9:20, where he “became like one under the law…so as to win those under the law.” According to this approach to the passage, the application should facilitate the fulfillment of Paul’s missionary purpose in our own social context rather than repeat the same restrictions that were appropriate then but can be a hindrance to conversions now.

However this issue may be settled, the ideals of this passage, beginning with prayer and including peaceful holiness on the part of men and modesty on the part of women, should be pursued by Christians today. Also men should not justify abuse or harsh domination of women, as they sometimes have done. Women should not neglect their pursuit of the gracious qualities taught in verses 9–15, as they also sometimes have done. And no church should split over these issues. To incite dissension is to sink to the level of the false teachers whom the Pastoral Letters so strongly condemn. “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

1. For early paintings depicting women at prayer, see the illustrations on pp. 57 and 93 and the comments on p. 92 in Ruth A. Tucker and Walter L. Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry From New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987).

2. Lit., “everywhere” translates “in every place [topos].” For a discussion of topos in 1 Timothy 2:8 see E. Ferguson, “ in 1 Timothy 2:8,” RestQ 33 (1991): 65–73.

3. See Walter L. Liefeld, “Lord’s Prayer,” ISBE, 4:162.

4. An example of striking word order is the placement of akolutos as the climactic last word in Acts (though he was imprisoned, Paul “taught about the Lord Jesus boldly and without hindrance” [lit. trans.]).

5. Cynthia L. Thompson, “‘Cosmetics’: The Social Power of Clichés.” This is a paper delivered at the AAR/SBL annual meeting, as far as I know never published.

6. See 1 Tim. 3:1; 5:10(2x), 25; 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14.

7. Some translate the Greek word hesychia with the word “silence,” but the corresponding adjective, hesuchion, just above in verse 2, clearly means “quiet” (in the phrase “quiet lives”). In verse 11, since it could mean either silence or quietness, the meaning that is consistent with its usage earlier in the chapter should at least be given preference. This is especially so, given the integrity of this chapter around the topic of Christian demeanor.

8. Sigountos and Shank, “Public Roles for Women in the Pauline Church,” JETS 26 (1983): 289–92.

9. Representative recent works include Douglas J. Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 179–93; Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 101–32; Andrew C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of in 1 Timothy 2:12,” TynBul 44 (1993): 129–42; Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 209–29.

10. Even an imperative can be understood as operational only in relevant circumstances, as with the familiar “greet one another with a holy kiss.” That action, like teaching, had cultural significance.

11. See especially didasko in 1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; didache in 2 Tim. 4:2, and didaskalia in 1 Tim. 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 3; 2 Tim. 3:10, 16; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10.

12. H. Scott Baldwin, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, in A. J. Köstenberger, T. R. Schreiner, and H. S. Baldwin, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 6580. Kroeger and Kroeger’s I Suffer Not a Woman has been heavily criticized, and with some justification (see R. W. Yarbrough, “I Suffer Not a Woman: A Review Essay,” Presbyterion 18 [1992]: 25–33. Nevertheless, it provides data in support of a strong sense of authenteo that need (with caveats about possible anachronisms and confusion of different universes of discourses) to be given consideration.

13. Köstenberger in Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church, 103.

14. Interestingly, and significantly for biblical gender studies, the verb exousiazo does occur in 1 Cor. 7:4, where Paul says that sexually a husband and wife have reciprocal authority over one another’s bodies.

15. This double entendre is proposed by Murray Harris, “Prepositions & Theology in the Greek New Testament,” NIDNTT, 3:1177.

16. Ignatius and others gave honor to the virgin Mary through whose act of child- bearing (a different Greek word was used) our salvation was made possible.

17. One common view of the New Testament passages about women is that the domination of man over woman ended for Christians at the cross and should not be perpetuated by negative interpretations of problematic passages like the one under consideration. That is not for discussion here, except to point out the need for exegetes to take seriously the effect of the Fall and redemption in gender relations.

18. There is much literature on this verse. To select a few recent works with varying viewpoints we will mention Andreas Köstenberger, “Saved Through Childbearing?” CBMW News 2 (1997): 1–6 (an abridgment of an earlier article); Douglas J. Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 192; S. E. Porter, “What Does It Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?” JSNT 49 (1993): 87–102. Köstenberger sees “saved” as being kept safe from being deceived, that is, kept safe from Satan. Moo sees childbearing as a metonymy for the woman’s whole ministry at home. Porter takes “saved” in its Pauline theological sense and holds that child- bearing refers not to Jesus’ birth of the virgin but to a woman having children. She must, however, continue in the qualities indicated.

19. See the comments in the Bridging Contexts section of 2 Timothy 3:6–7.

20. See esp. Sharon Hodgkin Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus (Lanham, Md.: Univ. Press of America, 1991); Kroeger, and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, esp. 47–58, 127–70, 193–211; and S. M. Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” in Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church, 13–52, which critiques the Kroegers’ work heavily.

21. R. W. Yarbrough is convinced that it has influenced those who take a nonrestrictive view of the text (“The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9–15,” in Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church, 155–96).

22. See Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church, which is a historical survey of women and ministry over the course of church history. This historical perspective is often overlooked in the debate.

23. “Modesty” (NRSV, NLT) is perhaps a better translation of sophrosyne than the NIV’s “propriety.”

Original Meaning

Attitude and Behavior of Women in the Christian Church (2:9–10)

THESE VERSES HAVE been differently interpreted depending on how one evaluates the significance of syntax and word order. The main issues are the omission of “to pray” in verse 9 and the syntactical role of “to dress,” which seems to replace prayer in the previous clause.

In the following structure the syntactical elements are listed in the order in which they occur in the order of the Greek text.

SYNTACTICAL ELEMENT	VERSE 8	VERSE 9
Main verb	I want	[understood]
Infinitive object of main verb	to pray
Accusative of reference (“subject” of the infinitive)	the men	women
Adverbial modifiers
place	in every place
manner	lifting holy hands, without anger or disputing	in tasteful attire with decency and propriety
Infinitive object of the unexpressed main verb, “I want”		to dress
Further adverbial modifiers		not with braided hair…but with good deeds

The question we face is whether Paul (1) intends to imply that the women do not pray (publicly) and that instead of praying their ministry is to dress modestly, or (2) expects the reader to infer that women do also pray (perhaps implied by hosautos, “also” in NIV; lit., “likewise”), and that while praying they are to be modestly dressed. The reason Paul puts the first expressed verb in the second clause (kosmein, “to dress”) into the infinitive form is for grammatical correctness (since he omits the verb “to pray,” which would have been in the infinitive). It corresponds in the sequence of thought, but not in syntax, to the participle epairontas (“to lift up [holy hands]”) in verse 8. If Paul had intended to state clearly that the counterpart to men’s prayer was women’s modest dress, we must ask why he did not put the verb “to dress” up front in the unoccupied position in verse 9 that corresponds to the infinitive “to pray” in verse 8.

It will be helpful to recall that there are basically two types of information communicated in a Greek sentence. One is what might be called “message” or “content” information; the other is “structure” information. The first is that which we learn from word meanings (i.e., lexical or semantic meaning). This includes the meaning of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, prefixes, suffixes, and so on. Structure information is what we learn from the relative placement of words, the case endings of nouns, the relationship between verb and indirect object, and so forth. Structure usually depends on syntax, but structural meaning is also found in word order (which may be independent of syntax).4 Both types of information combine in a clause or sentence to produce a semantic whole.

To analyze 2:9 in terms of message information, we note the absence of any verb meaning “to pray.” Further, in terms of structure information two facts are worth noting. (1) According to the syntax, “to dress” is the only expressed infinitive object of the understood verb “I want.” (2) According to the word order it can be understood that Paul assumes women’s prayer (suggested by the “likewise”) and proceeds to describe how women should dress when they are praying. He then goes beyond the circumstance of prayer to comment on the function of good works as an appropriate substitute for expensive clothing. The interpreter must choose (1) or (2); either is possible.

A major reason, external to this passage, for doubting that Paul is excluding women from praying in church meetings is that his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 on women’s head-covering is based on the fact that women did pray and prophesy (v. 5). Any doubt that Paul had the regular church meeting in mind is erased by the fact that this passage and the following one (11:17–34) on the Lord’s Supper “when you come together as a church” (v. 18) are not only placed together but are linked structurally by the similar phrases “I praise you” (v. 2) and “I have no praise for you” (v. 17). The Eucharist was mentioned in the preceding chapter (10:14–22), so the church service was already in mind when Paul wrote chapter 11.

It is possible, of course, that Paul had a different kind of prayer in mind here in 1 Timothy from that in 1 Corinthians, but that is hard to imagine since there is nothing in the circumstances to indicate such a difference. In both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy there is a concern for appearance (headcovering in one, modest dress in the other), suggesting that both meetings are public. Whatever the case may be as to women praying, it is clear that the main goal of the instruction in 1 Timothy 2:8–10 is not to command the act of prayer (the specific command to pray having already been given in vv. 1–2) but the demeanor of both men and women while praying and worshiping (see below on v. 10).

It is clear by now in this sequence of thought that Paul is dealing with expressions of morality in connection with the religious practices of men and women. He insists that their outward appearance should not be in conflict with their inner character. In verses 9–10 the example is that women’s inner piety should be expressed in good deeds. In ancient Greece, and to some extent still in Paul’s day, lavish dress, hair style, and jewelry were considered inconsistent with moral uprightness and true piety. Thus, Christian women were to dress “modestly.”

The description of the clothing, hairstyle, and jewelry suggests two reasons why they were improper. (1) One is inordinate expense. The mention of gold speaks for itself, and the adjective used to describe the inappropriate clothing is “expensive.” (2) The other is traditional association with immoral behavior.5 “With decency” is not the antithesis of extravagance, but has to do with ancient concepts of shame and honor. The noun used here (aidos) can mean reverence, self-respect, or shame. One could have a sense of shame not because of doing something immoral but as a commendable modest attitude. The word “propriety” (perhaps better translated “modesty”) accords with this as another factor in Christian women’s being moderate in their appearance. In sum, they are to avoid what exudes wealth and what suggests immorality.

Such external appearance may seem inconsequential to us, but it was not so in the ancient world. While it was not a doctrinal matter from a Christian standpoint, what one wore did communicate something to morally sensitive Jews and pagans. Note how the antithesis to wearing ostentatious and expensive clothing and jewelry is not only modesty but also “good deeds” (v. 10). In this context, good deeds are important not only for the help they bring to individuals, but especially for what they demonstrate about Christianity.

Paul emphasizes good deeds in the Pastoral Letters.6 While some deeds are to be done modestly in private (cf. Jesus’ words in Matt. 6:16–18), Jesus did teach that our light should shine before others so that they “may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (5:16). Several references to good deeds in the Pastoral Letters specifically mention public awareness of them. A widow, for example, must be “well known for her good deeds” in order to be put on the list for support (1 Tim. 5:10). Good deeds are “obvious” and “cannot be hidden” (1 Tim. 5:25). Titus 2:7 says that young men should show themselves as a “model of good works” (NRSV) so that opponents will be ashamed since they will then have nothing bad to say about Christians.

It is debatable whether the “worship” in which women participated (v. 10) was limited to acts of worship in the church, which, as we have just suggested, could include public prayer. The implication of the NIV translation, “women who profess to worship God,” can be taken to be that while these women professed the object of their worship to be God, it is indeed the act of worshiping that is in view, presumably in the church service. This implication does not, of course, exclude worship in daily life. The word for “worship” here is theosebeia, which refers to piety in general, not necessarily to acts of worship. It can connote church worship, however, as the word does in Epistle to Diognetus 4:5. There it refers to the practice of religion that in Christianity does not require the use of visible accouterments, as it does in pagan worship.